What do you think?
Rate this book
Altered States
Altered States is a 1980 science fiction film adaptation of a novel by the same name by playwright and screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky. It was the only novel that Chayefsky ever wrote, as well as his final film. Both the novel and the film are based on John C. Lilly's sensory deprivation research conducted in isolation tanks under the influence of psychoactive drugs like ketamine and LSD.
210 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1978
26 people are currently reading
1753 people want to read
About the author
Paddy Chayefsky
75 books70 followersSidney Aaron "Paddy" Chayefsky , was an American playwright, screenwriter, and novelist. He is the only person to have won three solo Academy Awards for Best Screenplay.
He was considered one of the most renowned dramatists of the so-called Golden Age of Television. His intimate, realistic scripts provided a naturalistic style of television drama for the 1950s, and he was regarded as the central figure in the "kitchen sink realism" movement of American television.
Following his critically acclaimed teleplays, Chayefsky continued to succeed as a playwright and novelist. As a screenwriter, he received three Academy Awards for Marty (1955), The Hospital (1971) and Network (1976). Marty was based on his own television drama about a relationship between two lonely people finding love. Network was his scathing satire of the television industry and The Hospital was considered satiric.
Chayefsky's early stories were notable for their dialogue, their depiction of second-generation Americans and their sentiment and humor. They were frequently influenced by the author's childhood in the Bronx. The protagonists were generally middle-class tradesmen struggling with personal problems: loneliness, pressures to conform or their own emotions.
Chayefsky died in New York City of cancer in August 1981 at the age of 58.
He was considered one of the most renowned dramatists of the so-called Golden Age of Television. His intimate, realistic scripts provided a naturalistic style of television drama for the 1950s, and he was regarded as the central figure in the "kitchen sink realism" movement of American television.
Following his critically acclaimed teleplays, Chayefsky continued to succeed as a playwright and novelist. As a screenwriter, he received three Academy Awards for Marty (1955), The Hospital (1971) and Network (1976). Marty was based on his own television drama about a relationship between two lonely people finding love. Network was his scathing satire of the television industry and The Hospital was considered satiric.
Chayefsky's early stories were notable for their dialogue, their depiction of second-generation Americans and their sentiment and humor. They were frequently influenced by the author's childhood in the Bronx. The protagonists were generally middle-class tradesmen struggling with personal problems: loneliness, pressures to conform or their own emotions.
Chayefsky died in New York City of cancer in August 1981 at the age of 58.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews
February 10, 2020
This is the spoiler free review of Altered States by Paddy Chayefsky. If you would like to check out the spoiler full review and read about how trippy this book gets in detail please go to https://amanjareads.com/2020/02/10/al...
I was lucky enough to first see the Altered States movie at a special screening on 35mm. The movie blew me away. It was so unlike any other sci fi movies I could think of. The philosophy behind it was new and the science used to explain it wasn’t outright laughable.
I saw that it was based on a book but when I went to buy it I found that it’s been out of print for quite some time. It looked like I would have to find a used copy at some point. I put it on my to read list and then just kind of forgot about it until my boyfriend surprised me with a heavily used copy for Christmas.
He said he bought the copy that was listed as still containing all of the pages. So sad that this wonderful book hasn’t been printed in so long and that it’s so difficult to find an adequate and readable copy!
But after all of that I am very happy to report that the book is exactly like the movie. It’s a brilliant adaptation of an extremely complex novel and I recommend both completely.
The basic premise is that an eccentric experimental psychiatrist professor believes that he can unlock the grand consciousness through use of an ancient hallucinogenic mushroom.
He believes that all consciousness is connected. Not just through one living person to another but through all human history as well. He finds he can relive memories from early human ancestors.
He goes on an intense and bizarre journey through use of this drug and learns invaluable lessons about what it means to be alive and how consciousness came to be. Everything anyone thinks they know about the fundamental realities of physics and humanity will be turned upside down.
The author went to great pains to make the book as scientifically accurate as possible given the completely out there premise of the book. He began with a wild idea and worked backwards, interviewing many experts on how, if any of this were possible, would it work.
A lot of theorizing goes into this book but it largely succeeds as a hard sci fi novel. Many science fiction stories get lazy with the science part. They move technology to the point that it’s basically magic, they stick to vague descriptions, or at worst they misuse existing science just to sound smart.
Altered States is anything but lazy. Casual readers may find the language challenging but almost everything can be deciphered through context. The characters are all highly regarded scientists in their fields and speak as experts would. Nothing is dumbed down but it never comes off as pretentious.
For as much happens in this book it is surprisingly short, under 200 pages, and I finished it very quickly. The characters and story are completely engaging and I was immersed in the concepts.
I highly recommend this one, please try and find a copy. But if you can’t the movie really is a very true adaptation and I can recommend it as well.
I was lucky enough to first see the Altered States movie at a special screening on 35mm. The movie blew me away. It was so unlike any other sci fi movies I could think of. The philosophy behind it was new and the science used to explain it wasn’t outright laughable.
I saw that it was based on a book but when I went to buy it I found that it’s been out of print for quite some time. It looked like I would have to find a used copy at some point. I put it on my to read list and then just kind of forgot about it until my boyfriend surprised me with a heavily used copy for Christmas.
He said he bought the copy that was listed as still containing all of the pages. So sad that this wonderful book hasn’t been printed in so long and that it’s so difficult to find an adequate and readable copy!
But after all of that I am very happy to report that the book is exactly like the movie. It’s a brilliant adaptation of an extremely complex novel and I recommend both completely.
The basic premise is that an eccentric experimental psychiatrist professor believes that he can unlock the grand consciousness through use of an ancient hallucinogenic mushroom.
He believes that all consciousness is connected. Not just through one living person to another but through all human history as well. He finds he can relive memories from early human ancestors.
He goes on an intense and bizarre journey through use of this drug and learns invaluable lessons about what it means to be alive and how consciousness came to be. Everything anyone thinks they know about the fundamental realities of physics and humanity will be turned upside down.
The author went to great pains to make the book as scientifically accurate as possible given the completely out there premise of the book. He began with a wild idea and worked backwards, interviewing many experts on how, if any of this were possible, would it work.
A lot of theorizing goes into this book but it largely succeeds as a hard sci fi novel. Many science fiction stories get lazy with the science part. They move technology to the point that it’s basically magic, they stick to vague descriptions, or at worst they misuse existing science just to sound smart.
Altered States is anything but lazy. Casual readers may find the language challenging but almost everything can be deciphered through context. The characters are all highly regarded scientists in their fields and speak as experts would. Nothing is dumbed down but it never comes off as pretentious.
For as much happens in this book it is surprisingly short, under 200 pages, and I finished it very quickly. The characters and story are completely engaging and I was immersed in the concepts.
I highly recommend this one, please try and find a copy. But if you can’t the movie really is a very true adaptation and I can recommend it as well.
March 19, 2023
I recently polled various groups on Google+, asking if they had read this Altered States, seen the film, both, or neither. The majority had seen the film, but ignored the book--as I had.
As a psychologist who tried a sensory deprivation tank and LSD, I was anxious to discover what more, if anything, Chayefsky could have written about the then novel approach to consciousness research.
I was even more motivated after learning of the dispute between Paddy Chayefsky and Ken Russell in filming that led Chayefsky to identify himself as screenwriter Sydney Aaron.
I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It mirrored the film in many ways and, as it happens, the imagery of the film helped make the reading even more involving.
It is the story—or obsession—of Dr. Edward (Eddie) Jessup and his longing to search for and find the absolute reality of one's being.
Chayefsky's research is obvious. There are many references to neuroanatomy, chemistry, and anthropology that could be sticking points for the lay reader. But the overall intensity wavered only slightly, and I felt an urgency to push through the book.
There are negatives, of course. Jessup would not have been able to communicate from the tank in a profoundly altered state: Jessup's speech would be garbled; his concepts fragmented. It also led to an overly simplistic and romanticized ending, one limited by Chayefsky's experiences and learning as applied to human consciousness.
Overall, Altered States is an underestimated novel. Going beyond the scope of science fiction, Chayefsky guides us on an intense exploration of Eddie Jessup's inner universe, although bound by religion and without any universal metaphysical or psychological significance. It melds science-fiction and contradicts Gene Roddenberry's view expanding into a new genre: the final frontier is not space but human consciousness.
My novel, The SHIVA Syndrome, extends Altered States, from mensurable sensory experiences to the paranormal and mystical.
As a psychologist who tried a sensory deprivation tank and LSD, I was anxious to discover what more, if anything, Chayefsky could have written about the then novel approach to consciousness research.
I was even more motivated after learning of the dispute between Paddy Chayefsky and Ken Russell in filming that led Chayefsky to identify himself as screenwriter Sydney Aaron.
I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It mirrored the film in many ways and, as it happens, the imagery of the film helped make the reading even more involving.
It is the story—or obsession—of Dr. Edward (Eddie) Jessup and his longing to search for and find the absolute reality of one's being.
Chayefsky's research is obvious. There are many references to neuroanatomy, chemistry, and anthropology that could be sticking points for the lay reader. But the overall intensity wavered only slightly, and I felt an urgency to push through the book.
There are negatives, of course. Jessup would not have been able to communicate from the tank in a profoundly altered state: Jessup's speech would be garbled; his concepts fragmented. It also led to an overly simplistic and romanticized ending, one limited by Chayefsky's experiences and learning as applied to human consciousness.
Overall, Altered States is an underestimated novel. Going beyond the scope of science fiction, Chayefsky guides us on an intense exploration of Eddie Jessup's inner universe, although bound by religion and without any universal metaphysical or psychological significance. It melds science-fiction and contradicts Gene Roddenberry's view expanding into a new genre: the final frontier is not space but human consciousness.
My novel, The SHIVA Syndrome, extends Altered States, from mensurable sensory experiences to the paranormal and mystical.
March 28, 2016
There's always a danger with writing a book about science, that it will become outdated and "too simple" over time. Fortunately Chayefsky skirts past it by using ancient science and ideas that have been around for a long time. This was a fast read with a lot of truths in it- truths about human nature and about the vanity fair called academia. Whenever someone hits a snag in the conversation or appears dull witted, they respond by reciting the highlights of their c.v., which seems droll (and is). Even though not mentioned specifically, there's a lot of brain worship going on.
The narrative is fast moving and we progress rapidly to the intended outcome in a short, quick read. My only complaint is that the ending comes off a little corny, like everything is okay and we can go about our lives like nothing happened, even though something incredible did indeed happen. I guess that Chayefsky ran short on endings or paper or explanations. Still, a fascinating read.
The narrative is fast moving and we progress rapidly to the intended outcome in a short, quick read. My only complaint is that the ending comes off a little corny, like everything is okay and we can go about our lives like nothing happened, even though something incredible did indeed happen. I guess that Chayefsky ran short on endings or paper or explanations. Still, a fascinating read.
could-not-finish
January 21, 2022Yeah... I got about 35-40 pages in and... I just couldn't.
No action, no real direction, just two characters having a really messed up relationship. The woman is obsessed with the guy and I get the feeling that Chayefsky isn't writing a confused woman, he's writing a woman who is obsessed with a man who can not give her affection as if it's about love. That's the authorial view I was getting. For the record: not love, obsession.
The guy has no emotions, except a passion for his scientific work and a penchant for visions of Christ while aroused. Uh-huh. Sounds kind'a sociopathic, but I'm not a psychiatrist.
Either way, this guy tells this woman that he'll never feel anything for her. He'll marry her, he'll do the husband and father thing, but only for form and then he'll be back to the only thing that matters to him: his work. She gets angry, runs away, dotes on him, comes back and marries him. I mean... I just don't care about these two idiots.
I honestly just lost interest in continuing.
No action, no real direction, just two characters having a really messed up relationship. The woman is obsessed with the guy and I get the feeling that Chayefsky isn't writing a confused woman, he's writing a woman who is obsessed with a man who can not give her affection as if it's about love. That's the authorial view I was getting. For the record: not love, obsession.
The guy has no emotions, except a passion for his scientific work and a penchant for visions of Christ while aroused. Uh-huh. Sounds kind'a sociopathic, but I'm not a psychiatrist.
Either way, this guy tells this woman that he'll never feel anything for her. He'll marry her, he'll do the husband and father thing, but only for form and then he'll be back to the only thing that matters to him: his work. She gets angry, runs away, dotes on him, comes back and marries him. I mean... I just don't care about these two idiots.
I honestly just lost interest in continuing.
September 19, 2017
So the author basically interviewed scientists for two years about whatever silliness and then wrote a book about a scientist going to South America to hang out with natives and take magic mushrooms that are the ultimate hallucinogen. Then he eats a lizard while he trances out. Then he synthesizes the compound and takes it while in isolation tanks. He takes so much that turns into a proto caveman ape from the beginning of time and physically manifests a goat to eat it. Then he goes on a rampage and beats up a security guard and goes to hang out in a zoo. Then he wakes up and tries it again but then turns into explosive white light and the black hole nothingness from the beginning of time. But he later beats this because his wife gives him a hug. ...then it got turned into an 80s movie.
October 3, 2022
I wouldn't call this horror and the "science" framework is held together by a barrage of intimidating vocabulary and quantum physics flirtation and the realization that consciousness is powerful enough to distort reality itself, but I absolutely loved the tender relational arc between Emily and Jessop and their romantic epiphany at the end. If there is no truth, we have to make it up ourselves, and the substance of that truth is best reinforced by love.
August 17, 2022
I don't usually do snark in my book reviews (well -- not as much as I used to but...)
Can someone please explain to me what this book was about?
Can someone please explain to me what this book was about?
January 15, 2019
Urgent and practical prose bolstered with dialog, that at times, feels weighted with jargon while fully acknowledging the supremacy of story, and at other times—stabs right into the heart of humanity.
The story is driven by mankind’s mad, singular, all-encompassing quest to break through the illusory perceptions of reality and discover what’s behind existence. We follow the main character (Eddie) who serves as both protagonist and antagonist over the years as he explores the boundaries of science. The plot centers around the main character ingesting hallucinogens and seeking the solace of an isolation tank almost as if he is attempting to time travel. He’s actually trying to go back into a sort of collective unconsciousness to search out early man--the archetype of the noble savage. Eddie’s looking not only to go on a “trip” of his mind, but to break through the boundaries and perceptions of reality to the heights of spirituality and the depths of physics. He wants to breach past notions of time and space in a cosmic way. Yet, it is a personal quest.
In many ways the prose reads as a sort of modern Jules Verne type tale with the author shoving layers of scientific theory and research into the story to explain what’s going on. The overall read is smoother than older literature and the occasional dumps of jargon and theory are always countered with genuine passages of character emotion and grounded action. I found myself skipping over a lot of the technical talk (as I have in other such books), but the terminology is appropriate to the subject and may be more appealing to others looking for hard science in their fiction. The point is that the author is a highly skilled storyteller and hits all the right beats he should even with the heavy tech references.
There were definitely science fiction elements and even some horror present in this tale. What I enjoyed most was that everything felt realistic and tension was maintained without going overboard on the action. This reads primarily like a thriller, moving fast and light. It was very visual and the author’s steeped and much lauded background in television and film sort of came through almost as if I was reading a three-act structure screenplay (which he eventually did too—when this was adapted to film).
What the author is known for is his dialog in screen plays. This is present in the novel. There are masterful monologues where the characters give grand, yet grounded speeches professing their innermost hopes, fears, and desires. These give real gravity to the material and bolster the more fantastical elements—not that those were flimsy. The crescendo of this novel is as fitting as any such solid movie of its caliber. My only complaint, and perhaps I went into reading this with some bias having researched the author a bit beforehand, was that sometimes the shorter bits of dialog felt a little stilted and redundant (the quick back and forth). Also, the other characters who also tell the story (the wife and colleagues of Eddie), felt a bit two-dimensional at times. Though this was not always the case, and when the author allowed them to fall into monologues of their own, they did come alive.
Another interesting aspect of this book was the way the author made the main character compelling despite his unlikable personality. He’s driven to the point of neglecting those around him. Yet, he’s aware of his faults. Not that his awareness will stop him. He’s simply not a monster (ironically). In many ways the main character is searching for himself in his scientific quest to alter his own consciousness. It’s like he knows there is something wrong with himself and that things might be better if only he could get outside of his own head. He is in continual quest for a primal consciousness. A more primitive self. A simpler more animalistic time. Which is a counterpoint to his own personality that comes across almost robotic.
On the book’s jacket the author noted that he was thinking about the intersection of science, philosophy, and spirituality. This book very much explores that idea. The characters are all scientifically driven, however they get into such heady and technical science that the clear answers drift away and everything becomes just as fuzzy as spirituality might be considered.
In the end, it seems that the author is saying all these elements in life which appear to be in conflict with one another (i.e. spirituality and science), are actually in conversation with one another. That they come together in the final equation.
I don’t necessarily recommend this book for everyone, but it is a curiosity for those looking to explore another aspect of this famous script writer’s body of work or as a further exploration of the film—and, perhaps those looking for lots of science theory in their science fiction.
Podcast: If you enjoy my review (or this topic) this book and the movie based on it were further discussed/debated in a lively discussion on my podcast: "No Deodorant In Outer Space". The podcast is available on iTunes, Tune-In Radio, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Play Music, YouTube or our website (www.nodeodorant.com).
Episode Link: https://nodeodorantinouterspace.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/review-altered-states-paddy-chayefsky/
The story is driven by mankind’s mad, singular, all-encompassing quest to break through the illusory perceptions of reality and discover what’s behind existence. We follow the main character (Eddie) who serves as both protagonist and antagonist over the years as he explores the boundaries of science. The plot centers around the main character ingesting hallucinogens and seeking the solace of an isolation tank almost as if he is attempting to time travel. He’s actually trying to go back into a sort of collective unconsciousness to search out early man--the archetype of the noble savage. Eddie’s looking not only to go on a “trip” of his mind, but to break through the boundaries and perceptions of reality to the heights of spirituality and the depths of physics. He wants to breach past notions of time and space in a cosmic way. Yet, it is a personal quest.
In many ways the prose reads as a sort of modern Jules Verne type tale with the author shoving layers of scientific theory and research into the story to explain what’s going on. The overall read is smoother than older literature and the occasional dumps of jargon and theory are always countered with genuine passages of character emotion and grounded action. I found myself skipping over a lot of the technical talk (as I have in other such books), but the terminology is appropriate to the subject and may be more appealing to others looking for hard science in their fiction. The point is that the author is a highly skilled storyteller and hits all the right beats he should even with the heavy tech references.
There were definitely science fiction elements and even some horror present in this tale. What I enjoyed most was that everything felt realistic and tension was maintained without going overboard on the action. This reads primarily like a thriller, moving fast and light. It was very visual and the author’s steeped and much lauded background in television and film sort of came through almost as if I was reading a three-act structure screenplay (which he eventually did too—when this was adapted to film).
What the author is known for is his dialog in screen plays. This is present in the novel. There are masterful monologues where the characters give grand, yet grounded speeches professing their innermost hopes, fears, and desires. These give real gravity to the material and bolster the more fantastical elements—not that those were flimsy. The crescendo of this novel is as fitting as any such solid movie of its caliber. My only complaint, and perhaps I went into reading this with some bias having researched the author a bit beforehand, was that sometimes the shorter bits of dialog felt a little stilted and redundant (the quick back and forth). Also, the other characters who also tell the story (the wife and colleagues of Eddie), felt a bit two-dimensional at times. Though this was not always the case, and when the author allowed them to fall into monologues of their own, they did come alive.
Another interesting aspect of this book was the way the author made the main character compelling despite his unlikable personality. He’s driven to the point of neglecting those around him. Yet, he’s aware of his faults. Not that his awareness will stop him. He’s simply not a monster (ironically). In many ways the main character is searching for himself in his scientific quest to alter his own consciousness. It’s like he knows there is something wrong with himself and that things might be better if only he could get outside of his own head. He is in continual quest for a primal consciousness. A more primitive self. A simpler more animalistic time. Which is a counterpoint to his own personality that comes across almost robotic.
On the book’s jacket the author noted that he was thinking about the intersection of science, philosophy, and spirituality. This book very much explores that idea. The characters are all scientifically driven, however they get into such heady and technical science that the clear answers drift away and everything becomes just as fuzzy as spirituality might be considered.
In the end, it seems that the author is saying all these elements in life which appear to be in conflict with one another (i.e. spirituality and science), are actually in conversation with one another. That they come together in the final equation.
I don’t necessarily recommend this book for everyone, but it is a curiosity for those looking to explore another aspect of this famous script writer’s body of work or as a further exploration of the film—and, perhaps those looking for lots of science theory in their science fiction.
Podcast: If you enjoy my review (or this topic) this book and the movie based on it were further discussed/debated in a lively discussion on my podcast: "No Deodorant In Outer Space". The podcast is available on iTunes, Tune-In Radio, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Play Music, YouTube or our website (www.nodeodorant.com).
Episode Link: https://nodeodorantinouterspace.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/review-altered-states-paddy-chayefsky/
January 22, 2025
This story felt truly like a B movie script. A scientist munches on a few grams of the ultimate hallucinogenic mushroom and goes full caveman ape, literally. It had a boring start and only got interesting in the second half. The ending was something else, but I don't know what exactly. Good concept, poor execution. 3*
February 16, 2011
This book has a pretty curious spot in film history due to the clout of the author and the stubbornness of the chosen director, Ken Russell. Russell is a notoriously visual director while Chayefsky was a writer's writer. The amount of research and love Chayefsky put into this book really shows. It is a shame it was the only novel he ever wrote and doubly a shame considering the stress of the production is said to have put him into the grave. I really wish we could have seen a Chayefsky's intended adaptation of this instead of Russell's. Still, a pretty worthy cap to a formidable dramatist's career. Now I just need to find a copy of the screenplay Chayefsky wrote.
August 18, 2015
I loved this movie, but was always so obsessed with Ken Russell, the director, I never took realised it was based on this great novel by Paddy Chayefsky.
It is a gripping read...intelligent and mystifying, but accessible (perhaps because I saw the movie first).
It covers a lot of themes that seem to me more relevant now than they were when the book was published in 1978, particularly the idea of sensory depravation being the key to enlightenment of true self. But mostly, it is just a fantastical romp with drugs, love and genetics.
It's a pretty short novel but son dense with ideas and philosophical musings it feels incredible rich.
It is a gripping read...intelligent and mystifying, but accessible (perhaps because I saw the movie first).
It covers a lot of themes that seem to me more relevant now than they were when the book was published in 1978, particularly the idea of sensory depravation being the key to enlightenment of true self. But mostly, it is just a fantastical romp with drugs, love and genetics.
It's a pretty short novel but son dense with ideas and philosophical musings it feels incredible rich.
October 2, 2020
Brisk and entertaining load of horror-tinged SF hooey. Really deserves another half a star, but that's on Goodreads, not me.
Chayefsky was famously pissy about Ken Russell's movie version, but the book and movie are nearly identical in content, shape, and batshit craziosity.
You can see Chayefsky's background as a screenwriter in the perfectly shaped scenes and relentless propulsion forward, but his time as a playwright betrays him with magnificent stage-monologue dialogue he uses to exposit and character-develop all over us:
"What the hell do you want from me? I want a statement of intent right now! I want to know how important I am to you! Because I'm telling you right now I'm not going on the way we are! I'm not some cool chick who's in this just for the fucking! I don't go in for all that cool stuff! With me, it's love and marriage and children and home! That's the way I was brought up, and that's the way I am! I love you. I want to get married, and I want to know how you feel about that! I want a similar statement of intent right now!"
Or:
"I pretend to be a doting father. It's not real. I don't feel anything real right now for this kid except relief perhaps that she's finally asleep. Oh, I do it all. I'm an attentive father, a concerned father. I take them to the zoo, I tickle their stomachs. I sit with them when they're ill, romp with them when they're well, hold them when they're frightened. ... But I can't help it, Arthur. Mostly, I want to be rid of them. I want to be alone. I have a great deal of unfinished business with myself. I need to confront myself. Because the self I have at the moment is a very shoddy, makeshift thing, contrived, illusory, unreal, lacking truth and substance, constantly pretending, constantly lying, shifting, taking different forms."
The movie version was weird about sex in a very Ken Russell sort of way, but the book has its own sexual tics:
"He went at her with the fervor of a flagellant, bucking into her with a coarse, almost fanatic zeal, which somehow seemed directed away from her." And: "They made love when he felt like it, which was often enough, but these experiences more frequently than not had the quality of lancing a boil."
Ew.
Although, "When the sex was good, it was very good; she had cascades of unbridled orgasms, almost profane in their physical extravagance."
So there's that, I guess.
It's a fun book, at its heart a love story (even if it forces that message a bit at the end), but you seriously won't miss a thing if you skip the novel in favor of the flick. It's not that the movie is better than the book in the way of, say, Jaws or The Godfather; in this case, the novel and the movie are so close to the same experience that you may as well get some cool visuals and a bit of young William Hurt and Blair Brown nakedness in the bargain.
Oh, that reminds me: this novel contains more instances of the word "naked" than any other novel in the history of the world.
Chayefsky was famously pissy about Ken Russell's movie version, but the book and movie are nearly identical in content, shape, and batshit craziosity.
You can see Chayefsky's background as a screenwriter in the perfectly shaped scenes and relentless propulsion forward, but his time as a playwright betrays him with magnificent stage-monologue dialogue he uses to exposit and character-develop all over us:
"What the hell do you want from me? I want a statement of intent right now! I want to know how important I am to you! Because I'm telling you right now I'm not going on the way we are! I'm not some cool chick who's in this just for the fucking! I don't go in for all that cool stuff! With me, it's love and marriage and children and home! That's the way I was brought up, and that's the way I am! I love you. I want to get married, and I want to know how you feel about that! I want a similar statement of intent right now!"
Or:
"I pretend to be a doting father. It's not real. I don't feel anything real right now for this kid except relief perhaps that she's finally asleep. Oh, I do it all. I'm an attentive father, a concerned father. I take them to the zoo, I tickle their stomachs. I sit with them when they're ill, romp with them when they're well, hold them when they're frightened. ... But I can't help it, Arthur. Mostly, I want to be rid of them. I want to be alone. I have a great deal of unfinished business with myself. I need to confront myself. Because the self I have at the moment is a very shoddy, makeshift thing, contrived, illusory, unreal, lacking truth and substance, constantly pretending, constantly lying, shifting, taking different forms."
The movie version was weird about sex in a very Ken Russell sort of way, but the book has its own sexual tics:
"He went at her with the fervor of a flagellant, bucking into her with a coarse, almost fanatic zeal, which somehow seemed directed away from her." And: "They made love when he felt like it, which was often enough, but these experiences more frequently than not had the quality of lancing a boil."
Ew.
Although, "When the sex was good, it was very good; she had cascades of unbridled orgasms, almost profane in their physical extravagance."
So there's that, I guess.
It's a fun book, at its heart a love story (even if it forces that message a bit at the end), but you seriously won't miss a thing if you skip the novel in favor of the flick. It's not that the movie is better than the book in the way of, say, Jaws or The Godfather; in this case, the novel and the movie are so close to the same experience that you may as well get some cool visuals and a bit of young William Hurt and Blair Brown nakedness in the bargain.
Oh, that reminds me: this novel contains more instances of the word "naked" than any other novel in the history of the world.
July 31, 2022
As a Chayefsky fan, I'm surprised it took until now for me to read the novel based on the Ken Russell movie I've seen multiple times and that I knew Chayefsky hated. I think it's pretty faithful, though the ending of the book and the movie are a bit different. Chayefsky clearly did his research and puts you in the world of the research scientist (and that tank too).
I'm just sorry he died so soon after this movie as I would have liked to see what he would have come up with in the ensuing years. Plus, I've already seen Marty, Network and The Hospital...maybe I need to check out some of his plays.
I'm just sorry he died so soon after this movie as I would have liked to see what he would have come up with in the ensuing years. Plus, I've already seen Marty, Network and The Hospital...maybe I need to check out some of his plays.
March 19, 2008
yes, i read this book after seeing the movie. the movie is exactly like the book. really. both kick ass.
December 17, 2019
This is a Science Fiction classic. Read It.
Chayefsky’s research is remarkable and his vision is prophetic.
Chayefsky’s research is remarkable and his vision is prophetic.
November 3, 2025
The isolation tank was nothing more than a coffin with 10% magnesium sulfate into the water to increase buoyancy. In utter silence deprived of sensory stimulation, alone, isolated. No thanks. Subjects had varying experiences. Pleasant, deep rest, refreshed, energy. Time was lost. Jessup a scientist decided to have a go. After initial fear, he started hallucinating. Then sexual dreams. He came. Getting out of the tank he realized he had been in for 6 hours. The problem with altered states is the visions/experiences were personal and hard to articulate. Jessup off to an ancient tribe in Mexico that uses powered mushrooms that gives uses the exact same hallucinating trip. Jessup smoking the highly psychedelic mushroom. The trip returning to its first soul. Jessup experienced more than he could image. He ate and ripped apart a iguana. He was completely fucked up. He takes the drug back with him and continues to use. He is having flashbacks and feels like his body is transforming into an animal. He is feeling bones reforming under his skin. Absolutely transcendental. Heading into exotic relativistic psychics or quantum physics or is Jessup regressing to some quasi-simian creature? Jessup's x-rays are showing him to be a fucking gorilla. Did I just say that? More tank fun and psychedelic drug use and Jessup is four foot furry, erect, bipedal, protohuman. The earliest man. He is hunting gazelles at the local zoo. Ripping, eating. He feels complete satisfaction. With all the heavy scientific jargon this is still highly engaging dilemma of a man changing genetically that defies all scientist theories.
August 19, 2023
A perfect example of the movie being far superior to the book. With all due respect to Chayefsky, the writing is two-dimensional and too sloggish for this kind of material. I'm glad Ken Russell was able to turn the visuals up to 11 on the surreal scale, they offered more than words ever could with this story.
October 24, 2020
Prólogo:
A ficção cientifica pede crença à realidade através da ciência para validar as suas fantasias, um facto que a caracteriza desde sempre.
Lembro-me que quando era miúdo adorava fantasias, era completamente levado pelo lado sensorial de uma imagem e todas as suas implicações físicas. Aliás para mim nunca ouve ficção cientifica, existia apenas ficção, fosse um drama de sábado à tarde entre dois amantes num quarto como a aterragem de uma nave espacial chamada 'nostromo' num país com um número e um sigla como nome. Para uma criança tudo é igual, não existe identificação existe apenas sensação, ou se quiserem assim o ver, existe apenas identificação através da sensação superficial. Algo que felizmente guardo na minha memória e separo do meu contacto com o presente.
Claro que esta qualidade da ficção cientifica acaba por se tornar num defeito imenso com o passar do tempo. Porque crescemos e entendemos que todos os objectos criados com este propósito só podem ser algo porque pedem crença. Se não dermos crença a validade escoa para uma vala comum onde pairam devaneios sem lugar.
David Cronenberg fez bons filmes de ficção e ficção cientifica, o mais conhecido sendo o grande filme "A Mosca", um filme que supera o teste do tempo e superará para sempre, a meu ver, porque tem como base uma emoção humana que está aliada à surrealidade da ficção cientifica que serve sempre como um pórtico para o Homem lidar com o que é desconhecido.
Mas estamos a falar de "Estados Alterados", um filme que vi há anos atrás e que é bastante mau. Teatro filmado como plano de fundo para imagens pomposas psicadélicas que aludem à imensa infantilidade que caracteriza o trabalho de Ken Russell (um espectador impressionado com o filme 2001 odisseia no espaço, que bebia ao mesmo do trabalho de Kenneth Anger, mas sem o talento apenas a masturbação). Primeira coisa que gostaria de salientar é a seguinte, esqueçam o filme. Palhaçada pré-hipster americana, é como eu lhe chamo (com bons actores e um bom director de fotografia, é verdade).
Onde está Paddy Chayefsky nisto ? Em apuros, porque escreveu o seu único romance com o intento de o tornar num filme. Há que relembrar que Chayefsky é muito conhecido por ter escrito um guião fantástico chamado Network(realizado pelo operático Sidney Lumet).
O Romance em si:
Chayefsky usa a separação para causticar um encontro entre o Homem e a Consciência. Esta separação dá-se no tempo e no espaço através de uma droga que afecta o sistema límbico, localizado no cérebro, que leva um homem, Eddie Jessup, a alucinar uma viagem ao primeiro "eu", colmatando uma regressão genética que o leva a materializar-se durante quatro horas num hominídeo. Claro que isto tudo ganha espaço para respirar entre uma relação amorosa intensa entre Eddie Jessup e Emily. Eddie é o clássico génio obcecado pela Verdade, tendo em criança começado por projectar os seus desejos em ir ao encontro da mesma através de uma crença religiosa que terminou abruptamente na sua adolescência após a morte do seu Pai. E Emily é a clássica mulher inteligente que se sente hipnotizada pela paixão que Eddie tem pela vida, uma paixão que desafia a própria racionalidade.
Isto é tudo muito engraçado. E Chayefsky até tem um romance com uma substância que Ken Russell pura e simplesmente não entendeu (natural, estava com ambas as mãos dentro das calças a masturbar-se e a pensar nas imagens psicadélico-religiosas que iria criar para o seu filme usando o romance como um álibi narrativo). A verdadeira substância do romance é literalmente amorosa, onde Chayefsky utiliza o contacto que cada ser humano tem com o seu trabalho, a construção social da sua identidade que o mesmo edificou através da paixão, para trilhar o seu encontro com o desconhecido e, claro, para entender o que é o amor. Algo que foi erradicado quase por completo do filme. E este aspecto é sem dúvida alguma interessante - não é a abordagem mais comovente que encontrei, mas existe aqui alguma plausibilidade.
Aliás Chayefsky procurou imensos álibis tanto na ciência como na psicologia para dar substância à sua história. Não acredito que Chayefsky estivesse interessado no desconhecido, acredito até que Chayefsky achasse a relação entre os seres humanos verdadeiramente misteriosa. Não de um ponto de vista místico, algo que o romance utiliza apenas para dar credibilidade à droga descoberta no México, mas de um ponto de vista mental, da relação do Homem consigo, como individuo, e a noção insegura que ele tem ao se deparar perante um espaço desconhecido que o mesmo conhece como realidade. É aqui que as coisas também perdem a sua profundidade. Chayefsky leu uns livros sobre budismo e hinduísmo e sentou-se numa cadeira a escrever devaneios com base num principio, que eu considero, infantil, que supostamente caracteriza o que é a consciência.
Vamos lá ver se eu consigo explicar-me como deve ser.
Conclusão:
No romance Chayefsky alega que a consciência tem um impacto profundo na matéria e levou a mesma, desde o principio dos tempos, ao seu desenvolvimento histórico. Daí a relação entre o Homem e o Hominídeo(a regressão feita através da droga). Algo que é factual, sabemos disto e Darwin, em 1980 já estava morto há quase 100 anos. No entanto Chayefsky ignorou algo muito, muito importante. Algo que está tanto presente no budismo como no hinduísmo. Algo que não se intelectualiza, mas sim consciencializa-se. Consciência é tudo o que existe. Tudo é consciência. Numa mesa existe consciência, como numa árvore, como num solo, como nas estrelas, como em cada coisa que é uma coisa. Porque isso é o que a mente humana é capaz, de consciencializar. Algo que aliás todos os seres vivos fazem, mas claramente a uma profundidade diferente, incomparável até. Nós gostamos de dizer que somos animais racionais, e é um facto, mas esta dita racionalidade tem lugar porque consciencializamos o que é real. Claro que aqui existe um paradoxo inacreditável. Porque como não somos iluminados, tomamos muitas ilusões como realidades. Aliás a principal ilusão do ser humano é considerar-se um individuo. Esta confusão nasce através de um efeito de pensamentos que têm lugar no nosso desenvolvimento, desde muito cedo. Este efeito chama-se "eu" (conhecido como o ego), e torna-se numa causa sem o Homem dar por isso. Daí a tamanha distorção durante toda a sua vida, ou na grande maioria dos seres humanos. (Leiam sff, livros de Jiddu Krishnamurti, não os usem como uma fonte de autoridade, mas sim como um amigos distantes que vos levam a questionar a vossa noção de presente)
Chayefsky não entendeu isto. No entanto tinha todas as provas mesmo à sua frente, a frieza que Eddie Jessup sentia perante as necessidades do casamento e da sua responsabilidade biológica para com os seus filhos. E porque é que Eddie achava/sentia isto? Porque estava apaixonado pela sua noção de Verdade, que era o destino de todas as suas procuras. Claro que a possibilidade de em sociedade Eddie conseguir manifestar os seus desejos alimentaram a sua ilusão e como tal todas as necessidades do seu ego, daí a distância para com os outros conceitos sociais a que a sua mulher Emily era devota.
Chayefsky no entanto quase que choca com esta verdade, ao levar Emily a confrontar as necessidades do seu ego, em estar próxima de Eddie para se sentir completa, levando-a a ir para África estudar o comportamento dos macacos (tinha a ver com a sua profissão, ela ainda não sabia das consequências do trabalho de Eddie).
Emily teve uma oportunidade incrível, criar tensão perante a suas necessidades artificiais e até tinha a companhia dos seus filhos para ir ao encontro desta verdade. Mas só aqui existiria outro romance, porque levar uma mãe a ver os seus filhos como uma materialização fria de uma necessidade criada por um rio de pensamentos chamado o "eu", é algo difícil de engolir, seria do dia para a noite uma mulher louca sem qualquer contacto com a realidade. Todas as mães do mundo iriam dizer que era uma mulher doente. Porque todas as mães do mundo vivem da fisicalidade do seu parto e existe uma relação psicológica inacreditável com as suas crias(a triste verdade é que em muitos casos são apenas frutos biológicos de uma construção de pensamentos que incutiu necessidades).
Claro que Chayefsky nem cheirou esta possibilidade, porque o facto de que brota a mesma, é utilizado como um artificio para Emily vir a dar credibilidade às consciencializações que Eddie tem das suas regressões. Aqui está a falha de Chayefsky, a velha técnica bidimensional do teatro que se baseia na superficialidade para dar uma superfície palpável às suas arenas.
Portanto, resumindo, Chayefsky foi ao encontro da verdadeira plasticidade da ficção-cientifica em ser tão plausível como um desenho animado da Walt Disney. Claro que se tudo é consciência, nada existe para além da consciência. Não a consciência que o ser humano tem de si, algo que é moldável com a experiência e extremamente frágil perante as acusações da realidade, que se manifestam em todos os presentes, sempre imprevisíveis. Mas sim a consciência que está em cada coisa que é uma coisa, e sim, a mesma tem várias dimensões.
No entanto no fim do romance, quando existe a dita lamechice pseudo-existêncial, em que Jessup ao entender que depois desta realidade existe um vasto Nada que é caracterizado pela sua noção de solidão e frieza universal, e o mesmo escolhe viver da superfície, da materialidade, o contacto que ele tem com o que é tangível: Relações, casamento, filhos, e etc... - Eddie Jessup acaba por se tornar mesmo muito humano e com esta decisão Chayefsky salva-se, tanto a si como a nós, de um espetáculo de devaneios que não merecem ser lembrados (algo que o filme acabou por se tornar em). Esta decisão é maravilhosa, porque é mesmo o que se passa com o Homem. O Homem não quer abdicar do seu sofrimento pessoal, porque teme o seu sofrimento perante o que é desconhecido. Um paradoxo muito engraçado e que eu considero mais que plausível. Leia-se, o Homem odeia sofrer, abomina o sofrimento, quando entende que para além de si existe ainda mais sofrimento ele fica em casa a viver do passado. Aliás é tudo isso o que o Homem faz há mais de 2 mil anos, julgar o presente com memória. Tornar o novo em velho, para que tudo fique algo estável, seguro, conhecido para a mente.
No entanto a verdadeira gargalhada, para mim, foi entender que ambas as situações com Jessup não eram nada mais, nada menos, que imagens do seu próprio ego. O que o ego achava que era a Verdade, e o que o ego achava que era simplesmente um mantimento superficial. Não interessa na realidade. Toda esta viagem foi ego, ego de Jessup, ego de Emily, e claro, ego de Chayefsky. Quando digo ego, não estou a atacar uma necessidade pretensiosa que é manipulada pela vaidade. Porque isso não é a verdade. Estou mesmo a falar da necessidade que o ego tem de utilizar os seus pensamentos para criar hipóteses e desenvolver soluções que vão cair no mesmo erro que a primeira criação de um pensamento encontrou(o ego). Leia-se, ego gera ego. É assim tão simples. Algo que é hermético irá sofrer constantemente da consciencialização da sua hermeticidade. O que muitos chamam de subconsciente.
Portanto mesmo que este cenário Walt Disney para adultos fosse minimamente plausível, Jessup teria voltado à consciência que teve em criança, que o levou a catalogar de verdade uma simples interpretação que o seu ego teve dos seus sentidos(a sua noção do que é Deus, e toda a sua génese). Claro que isto é o que Eddie está a fazer com Emily, a dizer que estar em contacto com Deus é criar familias, amar o outro e etc... Coisas que são idílicas, e não são mais que distorções fractais de um desejo - o do ego em ser. (Leiam sff o livro de Byung-Chul Han, "A Agonia de Eros", quando o mesmo fala na negação da alteridade).
É aqui também que eu acabo por simpatizar com Chayefsky, aceito a sua ingenuidade e não a quero julgar. Respeito quem escreve o que sente, por mais errado que esteja. É assim que se enfrentam páginas em branco, com o coração.
Aprendamos com Chayefsky a acordar, não porque ele acordou, mas porque ele acabou por criar para saciar a necessidade que o seu ego teve em resolver-se, após ter ido ao encontro violento com a sua experiência em definir o que era real.
PS: A tradução de Paula Reis é engraçada e competente, mas eu por natureza odeio ler traduções dos originais ingleses/americanos. Existem mesmo poucas excepções perante este facto (lembro-me rapidamente dos romances de Beckett). Não acredito que tenha afectado a leitura e não sinto necessidade de , neste caso, ler o original. Às vezes ria-me com a necessidade que Paula Reis encontrou em traduzir certos maneirismos ignorando a plausibilidade da personagem em falar assim usando a língua portuguesa. Problemas que encontro porque tenho um cérebro que pensa em inglês e português. Traduzir o discurso coloquial americano para português é pior que assistir a uma peça de revista - Mas em sua defesa admito que poderia ter sido pior e compreendo a necessidade que os tradutores têm em serem assim tão impessoais na tradução.
No entanto achei engraçado comparar com as traduções do espanhol (discurso em alguns momentos no México). Paula Reis não teve problemas nenhuns em dizer "Eh caralho!" (como se diz em espanhol "Eh carago"), no entanto a sua tradução literal de "Jesus Christ Emily!" para algo como "Deus do Céu Emily!", levaram-me a soltar umas ligeiras gargalhadas. Porque raio não podemos dizer "Porra Emily!" ou "Santa paciência Emily" (estou a escrever de memória). Eu admito ter um grave problema com isto, não suporto ver filmes americanos/ingleses com legendas há mais de 15 anos.
PS 2: Peço desculpa pela falta de algumas virgulas.
A ficção cientifica pede crença à realidade através da ciência para validar as suas fantasias, um facto que a caracteriza desde sempre.
Lembro-me que quando era miúdo adorava fantasias, era completamente levado pelo lado sensorial de uma imagem e todas as suas implicações físicas. Aliás para mim nunca ouve ficção cientifica, existia apenas ficção, fosse um drama de sábado à tarde entre dois amantes num quarto como a aterragem de uma nave espacial chamada 'nostromo' num país com um número e um sigla como nome. Para uma criança tudo é igual, não existe identificação existe apenas sensação, ou se quiserem assim o ver, existe apenas identificação através da sensação superficial. Algo que felizmente guardo na minha memória e separo do meu contacto com o presente.
Claro que esta qualidade da ficção cientifica acaba por se tornar num defeito imenso com o passar do tempo. Porque crescemos e entendemos que todos os objectos criados com este propósito só podem ser algo porque pedem crença. Se não dermos crença a validade escoa para uma vala comum onde pairam devaneios sem lugar.
David Cronenberg fez bons filmes de ficção e ficção cientifica, o mais conhecido sendo o grande filme "A Mosca", um filme que supera o teste do tempo e superará para sempre, a meu ver, porque tem como base uma emoção humana que está aliada à surrealidade da ficção cientifica que serve sempre como um pórtico para o Homem lidar com o que é desconhecido.
Mas estamos a falar de "Estados Alterados", um filme que vi há anos atrás e que é bastante mau. Teatro filmado como plano de fundo para imagens pomposas psicadélicas que aludem à imensa infantilidade que caracteriza o trabalho de Ken Russell (um espectador impressionado com o filme 2001 odisseia no espaço, que bebia ao mesmo do trabalho de Kenneth Anger, mas sem o talento apenas a masturbação). Primeira coisa que gostaria de salientar é a seguinte, esqueçam o filme. Palhaçada pré-hipster americana, é como eu lhe chamo (com bons actores e um bom director de fotografia, é verdade).
Onde está Paddy Chayefsky nisto ? Em apuros, porque escreveu o seu único romance com o intento de o tornar num filme. Há que relembrar que Chayefsky é muito conhecido por ter escrito um guião fantástico chamado Network(realizado pelo operático Sidney Lumet).
O Romance em si:
Chayefsky usa a separação para causticar um encontro entre o Homem e a Consciência. Esta separação dá-se no tempo e no espaço através de uma droga que afecta o sistema límbico, localizado no cérebro, que leva um homem, Eddie Jessup, a alucinar uma viagem ao primeiro "eu", colmatando uma regressão genética que o leva a materializar-se durante quatro horas num hominídeo. Claro que isto tudo ganha espaço para respirar entre uma relação amorosa intensa entre Eddie Jessup e Emily. Eddie é o clássico génio obcecado pela Verdade, tendo em criança começado por projectar os seus desejos em ir ao encontro da mesma através de uma crença religiosa que terminou abruptamente na sua adolescência após a morte do seu Pai. E Emily é a clássica mulher inteligente que se sente hipnotizada pela paixão que Eddie tem pela vida, uma paixão que desafia a própria racionalidade.
Isto é tudo muito engraçado. E Chayefsky até tem um romance com uma substância que Ken Russell pura e simplesmente não entendeu (natural, estava com ambas as mãos dentro das calças a masturbar-se e a pensar nas imagens psicadélico-religiosas que iria criar para o seu filme usando o romance como um álibi narrativo). A verdadeira substância do romance é literalmente amorosa, onde Chayefsky utiliza o contacto que cada ser humano tem com o seu trabalho, a construção social da sua identidade que o mesmo edificou através da paixão, para trilhar o seu encontro com o desconhecido e, claro, para entender o que é o amor. Algo que foi erradicado quase por completo do filme. E este aspecto é sem dúvida alguma interessante - não é a abordagem mais comovente que encontrei, mas existe aqui alguma plausibilidade.
Aliás Chayefsky procurou imensos álibis tanto na ciência como na psicologia para dar substância à sua história. Não acredito que Chayefsky estivesse interessado no desconhecido, acredito até que Chayefsky achasse a relação entre os seres humanos verdadeiramente misteriosa. Não de um ponto de vista místico, algo que o romance utiliza apenas para dar credibilidade à droga descoberta no México, mas de um ponto de vista mental, da relação do Homem consigo, como individuo, e a noção insegura que ele tem ao se deparar perante um espaço desconhecido que o mesmo conhece como realidade. É aqui que as coisas também perdem a sua profundidade. Chayefsky leu uns livros sobre budismo e hinduísmo e sentou-se numa cadeira a escrever devaneios com base num principio, que eu considero, infantil, que supostamente caracteriza o que é a consciência.
Vamos lá ver se eu consigo explicar-me como deve ser.
Conclusão:
No romance Chayefsky alega que a consciência tem um impacto profundo na matéria e levou a mesma, desde o principio dos tempos, ao seu desenvolvimento histórico. Daí a relação entre o Homem e o Hominídeo(a regressão feita através da droga). Algo que é factual, sabemos disto e Darwin, em 1980 já estava morto há quase 100 anos. No entanto Chayefsky ignorou algo muito, muito importante. Algo que está tanto presente no budismo como no hinduísmo. Algo que não se intelectualiza, mas sim consciencializa-se. Consciência é tudo o que existe. Tudo é consciência. Numa mesa existe consciência, como numa árvore, como num solo, como nas estrelas, como em cada coisa que é uma coisa. Porque isso é o que a mente humana é capaz, de consciencializar. Algo que aliás todos os seres vivos fazem, mas claramente a uma profundidade diferente, incomparável até. Nós gostamos de dizer que somos animais racionais, e é um facto, mas esta dita racionalidade tem lugar porque consciencializamos o que é real. Claro que aqui existe um paradoxo inacreditável. Porque como não somos iluminados, tomamos muitas ilusões como realidades. Aliás a principal ilusão do ser humano é considerar-se um individuo. Esta confusão nasce através de um efeito de pensamentos que têm lugar no nosso desenvolvimento, desde muito cedo. Este efeito chama-se "eu" (conhecido como o ego), e torna-se numa causa sem o Homem dar por isso. Daí a tamanha distorção durante toda a sua vida, ou na grande maioria dos seres humanos. (Leiam sff, livros de Jiddu Krishnamurti, não os usem como uma fonte de autoridade, mas sim como um amigos distantes que vos levam a questionar a vossa noção de presente)
Chayefsky não entendeu isto. No entanto tinha todas as provas mesmo à sua frente, a frieza que Eddie Jessup sentia perante as necessidades do casamento e da sua responsabilidade biológica para com os seus filhos. E porque é que Eddie achava/sentia isto? Porque estava apaixonado pela sua noção de Verdade, que era o destino de todas as suas procuras. Claro que a possibilidade de em sociedade Eddie conseguir manifestar os seus desejos alimentaram a sua ilusão e como tal todas as necessidades do seu ego, daí a distância para com os outros conceitos sociais a que a sua mulher Emily era devota.
Chayefsky no entanto quase que choca com esta verdade, ao levar Emily a confrontar as necessidades do seu ego, em estar próxima de Eddie para se sentir completa, levando-a a ir para África estudar o comportamento dos macacos (tinha a ver com a sua profissão, ela ainda não sabia das consequências do trabalho de Eddie).
Emily teve uma oportunidade incrível, criar tensão perante a suas necessidades artificiais e até tinha a companhia dos seus filhos para ir ao encontro desta verdade. Mas só aqui existiria outro romance, porque levar uma mãe a ver os seus filhos como uma materialização fria de uma necessidade criada por um rio de pensamentos chamado o "eu", é algo difícil de engolir, seria do dia para a noite uma mulher louca sem qualquer contacto com a realidade. Todas as mães do mundo iriam dizer que era uma mulher doente. Porque todas as mães do mundo vivem da fisicalidade do seu parto e existe uma relação psicológica inacreditável com as suas crias(a triste verdade é que em muitos casos são apenas frutos biológicos de uma construção de pensamentos que incutiu necessidades).
Claro que Chayefsky nem cheirou esta possibilidade, porque o facto de que brota a mesma, é utilizado como um artificio para Emily vir a dar credibilidade às consciencializações que Eddie tem das suas regressões. Aqui está a falha de Chayefsky, a velha técnica bidimensional do teatro que se baseia na superficialidade para dar uma superfície palpável às suas arenas.
Portanto, resumindo, Chayefsky foi ao encontro da verdadeira plasticidade da ficção-cientifica em ser tão plausível como um desenho animado da Walt Disney. Claro que se tudo é consciência, nada existe para além da consciência. Não a consciência que o ser humano tem de si, algo que é moldável com a experiência e extremamente frágil perante as acusações da realidade, que se manifestam em todos os presentes, sempre imprevisíveis. Mas sim a consciência que está em cada coisa que é uma coisa, e sim, a mesma tem várias dimensões.
No entanto no fim do romance, quando existe a dita lamechice pseudo-existêncial, em que Jessup ao entender que depois desta realidade existe um vasto Nada que é caracterizado pela sua noção de solidão e frieza universal, e o mesmo escolhe viver da superfície, da materialidade, o contacto que ele tem com o que é tangível: Relações, casamento, filhos, e etc... - Eddie Jessup acaba por se tornar mesmo muito humano e com esta decisão Chayefsky salva-se, tanto a si como a nós, de um espetáculo de devaneios que não merecem ser lembrados (algo que o filme acabou por se tornar em). Esta decisão é maravilhosa, porque é mesmo o que se passa com o Homem. O Homem não quer abdicar do seu sofrimento pessoal, porque teme o seu sofrimento perante o que é desconhecido. Um paradoxo muito engraçado e que eu considero mais que plausível. Leia-se, o Homem odeia sofrer, abomina o sofrimento, quando entende que para além de si existe ainda mais sofrimento ele fica em casa a viver do passado. Aliás é tudo isso o que o Homem faz há mais de 2 mil anos, julgar o presente com memória. Tornar o novo em velho, para que tudo fique algo estável, seguro, conhecido para a mente.
No entanto a verdadeira gargalhada, para mim, foi entender que ambas as situações com Jessup não eram nada mais, nada menos, que imagens do seu próprio ego. O que o ego achava que era a Verdade, e o que o ego achava que era simplesmente um mantimento superficial. Não interessa na realidade. Toda esta viagem foi ego, ego de Jessup, ego de Emily, e claro, ego de Chayefsky. Quando digo ego, não estou a atacar uma necessidade pretensiosa que é manipulada pela vaidade. Porque isso não é a verdade. Estou mesmo a falar da necessidade que o ego tem de utilizar os seus pensamentos para criar hipóteses e desenvolver soluções que vão cair no mesmo erro que a primeira criação de um pensamento encontrou(o ego). Leia-se, ego gera ego. É assim tão simples. Algo que é hermético irá sofrer constantemente da consciencialização da sua hermeticidade. O que muitos chamam de subconsciente.
Portanto mesmo que este cenário Walt Disney para adultos fosse minimamente plausível, Jessup teria voltado à consciência que teve em criança, que o levou a catalogar de verdade uma simples interpretação que o seu ego teve dos seus sentidos(a sua noção do que é Deus, e toda a sua génese). Claro que isto é o que Eddie está a fazer com Emily, a dizer que estar em contacto com Deus é criar familias, amar o outro e etc... Coisas que são idílicas, e não são mais que distorções fractais de um desejo - o do ego em ser. (Leiam sff o livro de Byung-Chul Han, "A Agonia de Eros", quando o mesmo fala na negação da alteridade).
É aqui também que eu acabo por simpatizar com Chayefsky, aceito a sua ingenuidade e não a quero julgar. Respeito quem escreve o que sente, por mais errado que esteja. É assim que se enfrentam páginas em branco, com o coração.
Aprendamos com Chayefsky a acordar, não porque ele acordou, mas porque ele acabou por criar para saciar a necessidade que o seu ego teve em resolver-se, após ter ido ao encontro violento com a sua experiência em definir o que era real.
PS: A tradução de Paula Reis é engraçada e competente, mas eu por natureza odeio ler traduções dos originais ingleses/americanos. Existem mesmo poucas excepções perante este facto (lembro-me rapidamente dos romances de Beckett). Não acredito que tenha afectado a leitura e não sinto necessidade de , neste caso, ler o original. Às vezes ria-me com a necessidade que Paula Reis encontrou em traduzir certos maneirismos ignorando a plausibilidade da personagem em falar assim usando a língua portuguesa. Problemas que encontro porque tenho um cérebro que pensa em inglês e português. Traduzir o discurso coloquial americano para português é pior que assistir a uma peça de revista - Mas em sua defesa admito que poderia ter sido pior e compreendo a necessidade que os tradutores têm em serem assim tão impessoais na tradução.
No entanto achei engraçado comparar com as traduções do espanhol (discurso em alguns momentos no México). Paula Reis não teve problemas nenhuns em dizer "Eh caralho!" (como se diz em espanhol "Eh carago"), no entanto a sua tradução literal de "Jesus Christ Emily!" para algo como "Deus do Céu Emily!", levaram-me a soltar umas ligeiras gargalhadas. Porque raio não podemos dizer "Porra Emily!" ou "Santa paciência Emily" (estou a escrever de memória). Eu admito ter um grave problema com isto, não suporto ver filmes americanos/ingleses com legendas há mais de 15 anos.
PS 2: Peço desculpa pela falta de algumas virgulas.
January 8, 2024
I LOVED this book for six reasons:
1. the science
2. the fact that the author's often "telling," but I didn't care
3. the fact that it's "really" the story of a marriage
4. how surprisingly close the movie, which I've always loved, was to the text
5. the overall concept
6. just the WRITING in general.
1. the science
2. the fact that the author's often "telling," but I didn't care
3. the fact that it's "really" the story of a marriage
4. how surprisingly close the movie, which I've always loved, was to the text
5. the overall concept
6. just the WRITING in general.
July 30, 2019
This is the story of a man who has to lose his humanity in order to find it.
Eddie Jessup is a scientist who used to be very religious. Aged nine, he had visions of angels and spoke in tongues, much to the chagrin of his parents, who were militant secularists. But his father’s “terrible” death from cancer changes everything: If “the purpose of all our suffering was just more suffering” then we can dispense with God, although Jessup continues to think about God, not to mention Jesus and crucifixions, when making love; and he still sees with “the eyes of faith,” – but his adult faith is that science (with a bit of Buddhism thrown in) can overcome the opposition between the intuitive and the quantifiable by developing methodologies “for studying our other consciousnesses under controlled conditions.”
Enter the isolation tank. And that’s exactly what Jessup starts doing, in quest of his God-substitute, the Original True Self: experimenting on his own consciousness in an isolation tank, tanked up with hallucinogenic drugs synthesised from plants and mushrooms Jessup brings back from Mexico, where he is initiated by a brujo. In a scene that is a foretaste of things to come, Jessup finds that there is a confusion of categories when tripping. How can other people share his dream? And how can things he experiences inwardly have an outer manifestation? And what happens to your marriage when you spend so much of your time in an isolation tank?
Never one for small talk, on his first date with his future wife Emily, Jessup tried to seduce her by explaining about etiologic agents, pathogenic mechanisms and transmethylation. Fortunately, she loves it when he talks dirty; when he later offers to play her tapes of ontogenetic de-maturation, she’s hooked! Sadly, Emily realises that Jessup is still a “religious freak” for whom neither she nor everyday life has any reality “because it’s uncertain, imperfect, transient”; but she marries him because he finds her sexy; and puts up with him for awhile because she fancies him so much.
A marriage made in Heaven it isn’t (yet); but Jessup is exploring his inner paradise in his isolation tank, experiencing the birth of Man and lapsing into the kind of monologues I thought only belonged to Lovecraftian anti-heroes who feverishly scrawl their journal entries while extra-dimensional beings try to suck them into the spaces between the stars: “He’s devouring me! Ripping at my flesh! Clawing away my integumentation! ... Pure, ultimate hunger! Unbridled, natural, creature hunger! The id! The incarnated id!”
Passages like this read like a taxi ride from Hell: “I had one of those incarnated ids in the back of my cab once. Bloody thing clawed away my integumentation! Good thing I was insured.”
The scientific jargon is seemingly relentless as Jessup and his pals attempt to understand the apparent “externalisations” of his inner experiences – “some kind of time-space fallout from the hallucination” being one of the more pronounceable for those of us who’ve never graduated from Miskatonic U – hang on, I feel a “transient ischemic attack” coming on...Oh, that’s better. By Jove, I needed that... But I digress. When an endocrinologist declares that he’s not going to listen to any more “cabalistic, quantum, frigging, limbo-state, dumb mumbo-jumbo” you want to cheer him on – but you’re only halfway through the book!
When Jessup has a series of blood tests, it turns out he has “a slightly abnormal differential in the white count, some hyper-segmented nuclei in the polys, some rouleau formation, and a general increase in myotic activity.” Add to that the “non-human” results of a buccal smear and you can understand why his wife just can’t stay away.
And I think we can all agree when Jessup tells Emily that what has been happening to him is “incomprehensible”, except that he must be tapping into a quantum state of pure energy potential. It is indeed, as he says, “an implacably beautiful thought!” – but the shadow of that beauty is the savage beast unleashed in a zoo which smashes in the skull of a gazelle and beats off dogs who try to steal its prey. Eating the raw flesh, Jessup at last experiences “energy in a total symmetry ... primal unity.”
He believes he has found the Ultimate Force, the Final Truth! But it turns out to be more like Lovecraft’s Azathoth – "that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the centre of all infinity" – as Jessup risks being sucked into his own private black hole “into another universe”. Thank God/Original Self Jessup has the love of a good woman to shield him “against the horror of human origins.” He may be “an unfrocked priest, a renegade monk, a Faust freak who would sell his soul for the great truth”, but he’s her Faust freak: she’s possessed by him; he’s “ravished by Truth.” When her love brings him back down to Earth, Jessup at last knows a marriage made in Heaven.
May 29, 2025
Russell’s film adaptation provides the visual surrealistic basis which Chayefsky’s prose fails to communicate
September 11, 2018
Ever wanted to experience the psychedelic/swinging 60s/70s in book form? Now you can! Well, it's not quite same as dropping a tab of acid, or swallowing a handful of mushrooms, but Chayefsky's novel, which he adapted into the movie starring William Hurt, is like an adult version of Alice in Wonderland crossed with Frankenstein with a dash of The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. Or imagine if Michael Crichton had become a theoretical physicist with a wake and bake routine.
I mainly read this book just to check out how Chayefsky, already a legendary screenwriter, handled a novel. I'd say this represents a culmination of nearly all his writing efforts. His work generally contained existential themes like the meaning of life, humanity in the face of industry, and such heady topics. But Altered States explores the very nature of consciousness itself. At times it's a little too jargon heavy. Chayefsky's two years of intense research amongst the Boston-area medical intelligentsia certainly shows. This is not a book that attempts in any way to be relatable, reflecting the monastic traits of its main character. Nor is it a book that will necessarily put you off due to its way out there premise. I think Chayefsky actually left a lot on the table, and could have explored the transformative effects Jessup experiences in the isolation tank more thoroughly. Instead, plot is dispensed with in favor of scientific soliloquies. Not bad, overall, it just feels truncated.
This is one of those books that you will likely revisit several times in your life, drawing different meaning from it depending on which era you're currently in. The movie is worth checking out, but don't expect it to offer any more answers than the novel.
I mainly read this book just to check out how Chayefsky, already a legendary screenwriter, handled a novel. I'd say this represents a culmination of nearly all his writing efforts. His work generally contained existential themes like the meaning of life, humanity in the face of industry, and such heady topics. But Altered States explores the very nature of consciousness itself. At times it's a little too jargon heavy. Chayefsky's two years of intense research amongst the Boston-area medical intelligentsia certainly shows. This is not a book that attempts in any way to be relatable, reflecting the monastic traits of its main character. Nor is it a book that will necessarily put you off due to its way out there premise. I think Chayefsky actually left a lot on the table, and could have explored the transformative effects Jessup experiences in the isolation tank more thoroughly. Instead, plot is dispensed with in favor of scientific soliloquies. Not bad, overall, it just feels truncated.
This is one of those books that you will likely revisit several times in your life, drawing different meaning from it depending on which era you're currently in. The movie is worth checking out, but don't expect it to offer any more answers than the novel.
September 18, 2017
Chayefsky's style in Altered States is notably utilitarian but laced with beauty as if to show he was capable of more.
The tone is earnest, and not only because the proto-autistic protagonist Jessup is a scientific mystic. Each character's life is intense and serious. Children exist and might have added some levity, but they're treated as props (mostly to illustrate the inconvenience of family life). I remember just one joke, and it was loaded with anxiety.
The principal theme is love vs. existential dread. Emily sets it up for us on page 28 (here in the film's more concise dialogue):
"Human life doesn't have great truths. We're born in doubt and spend our lives convincing ourselves we're alive, and one way we do that is we love each other..."
Chayefsky's exploration of this theme is engaging and ultimately moving. Minor flaws include occasionally inconsistent or superficial character motivation and clumsy/pedantic expostulation. There is a lot of scientific jargon from an array of disciplines including anthropology, biology, and physics, which might detract from the story for a casual reader.
Chayefsky was principally a screenwriter, so I imagine he was seeing the movie in his mind as he wrote.
But I wish he had taken time to replace some of that exposition with subtler descriptive language for greater philosophical and emotional impact on the reader. With a little more literary craft, this might have been a widely-recognized classic novel.
Short version: [Segal's Love Story x Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey]
The tone is earnest, and not only because the proto-autistic protagonist Jessup is a scientific mystic. Each character's life is intense and serious. Children exist and might have added some levity, but they're treated as props (mostly to illustrate the inconvenience of family life). I remember just one joke, and it was loaded with anxiety.
The principal theme is love vs. existential dread. Emily sets it up for us on page 28 (here in the film's more concise dialogue):
"Human life doesn't have great truths. We're born in doubt and spend our lives convincing ourselves we're alive, and one way we do that is we love each other..."
Chayefsky's exploration of this theme is engaging and ultimately moving. Minor flaws include occasionally inconsistent or superficial character motivation and clumsy/pedantic expostulation. There is a lot of scientific jargon from an array of disciplines including anthropology, biology, and physics, which might detract from the story for a casual reader.
Chayefsky was principally a screenwriter, so I imagine he was seeing the movie in his mind as he wrote.
But I wish he had taken time to replace some of that exposition with subtler descriptive language for greater philosophical and emotional impact on the reader. With a little more literary craft, this might have been a widely-recognized classic novel.
Short version: [Segal's Love Story x Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey]
August 21, 2018
Altered States is definitely a book of its time (published 1978). The core is Man v Himself and I don't think Chayefsky would have made it as an SF author. The story is well enough told, simply not told well. After 180 pages of the protagonist being a stereotypical (not quite) mad scientist who'll let nothing stand in the way of his research, we learn love conquers all with only a few paragraphs documenting this transition. I'm glad I read it (it explained some aspects of the movie) and am not sure if I'll read it again.
For the writer: Paddy Chayefsky was a gifted writer who won several awards. Some of those gifts are on display in Altered States. I learned a great deal during my reading. I would recommend it to other writers who want to see how much the concept of "good" writing has changed in the past fifty years and to see how too much research can slow down a novel. I have a background in the sciences Chayefsky draws from and I found myself slowing down in some parts. His research didn't add validity so much as torpidity. Not good.
For the writer: Paddy Chayefsky was a gifted writer who won several awards. Some of those gifts are on display in Altered States. I learned a great deal during my reading. I would recommend it to other writers who want to see how much the concept of "good" writing has changed in the past fifty years and to see how too much research can slow down a novel. I have a background in the sciences Chayefsky draws from and I found myself slowing down in some parts. His research didn't add validity so much as torpidity. Not good.
January 16, 2011
Paddy Chayefsky wrote only this one novel as well as the screenplay for the motion picture, so both can be considered as mutually amplifying.
I saw the movie when it came out and only read the book when, years later, I found a used copy of it for sale. Frankly, I preferred the movie, partly for the Artaud-inspired sequences, partly because I expect less of a movie than of a book.
Although inspired by Lilly's very real experiments with sensory deprivation and psychotropics, the novel gets too far out in having a physical transformation seem to occur to the protagonist. I can handle the suggestion of other dimensions of being and of the possibility of accessing them by such means, but not the contravention of physical laws in this dimension.
I saw the movie when it came out and only read the book when, years later, I found a used copy of it for sale. Frankly, I preferred the movie, partly for the Artaud-inspired sequences, partly because I expect less of a movie than of a book.
Although inspired by Lilly's very real experiments with sensory deprivation and psychotropics, the novel gets too far out in having a physical transformation seem to occur to the protagonist. I can handle the suggestion of other dimensions of being and of the possibility of accessing them by such means, but not the contravention of physical laws in this dimension.
March 11, 2014
Somewhere in here there's a story I want to know. Its buried under mounds of useless technical detail, translucent and cliched character development, and a twist that is handled in such a ham-fisted way that I nearly stopped the book completely with less than 50 pages left. It really is a shame, because the opening sequence to this novel got its hooks into me deeply and quickly. The concept of the isolation chamber, research into the far corners of physiology, it had the makings of a cool, creepy plot. Sadly it just didn't work. I wish that I could have Rod Serling re-write this, because his subtlety would have turned this into one hell of an entry into the Twilight Zone series.
June 26, 2009
Chayefsky reportedly hated Ken Russell's adaptation of his story, but this goofy head-scratcher really benefits from Russell's one-of-a-kind visual treatment. On the page the scientific gaffs seem so ludicrous, and Chayefsky takes them so literally, that it's hard to allow him the necessary poetic license. Chayefsky is not a perfect writer, but he is one who always has big ideas that inform his work. The ideas of "Network" redeem its speechifying and its dramatic clunkiness. The ideas here are a mess, but a fascinating mess.
October 1, 2021
Well, this is my third time through this books, so safe to say I enjoy it. First read it in the 80s, and promptly sought out a floatation tank experience, which happened again after the second read, and will likely happen after the third. I always want to pair this with another reading of Castaneda's The Teachings of Don Juan.
September 28, 2019
Short and science-y would be my only issues with this book. The writing is straight forward with not so much flair but you do get into the lives of the main characters. It’s a classic I suppose but doesn’t seem to have aged super well.
November 7, 2008
If you're looking for inspired drug writing, check out some Heinlein or Phillip Dick's "Three stigmata of palmer eldrich"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews